Re: Hisoft C — ZXNet «real.speccy»

From Edward Macary To All 3 November 2004

Tue Nov 02 2004 20:30, Kirill Frolov wrote to Degtyarev Andrey:

DA>> By the way, I threw Linux headers into this compiler
DA>> and used it without problems.

KF> Now, if you had assembled Linux for them, XFree and mozilla are, yes, something else
KF> matter...

And if I had collected it, then for what?

Edward.

From Kirill Frolov To All 3 November 2004

DA>>> By the way, I threw Linux headers into this compiler
DA>>> and used it without problems.
KF>> Now, if you had compiled Linux for them, XFree and mozilla - yes, that’s a different matter
KF>> it’s a different matter...

From Edward Macary To All 4 November 2004

KF> Watch porn on the Internet.

In the style of “clicked on a link in the morning, and looked at one
picture in the evening (a month later)”? :)

Edward.

From Evgeny Belov To All 7 November 2004

EM> In the style of “in the morning I clicked on the link, and in the evening (a month later) I looked
EM> one picture”? :).

From Vassili Klimov To All 7 November 2004

Greetings, Evgeny!

EB> By the way, what was the real speed of that modem on OSes?
EB> the one they made specifically for ZX, not isa.
2400, but they say they managed to overclock to 3800 (XTR modem)

wbr, jtn.

From Vladimir Berezenko To All 7 November 2004

So look towards uCLinux. It does not require the presence of MMU in the system. There are,
of course, restrictions on the operation of applications, but for spec this is not critical.

WBR, Vladimir Berezenko AKA Q-Master q_mast...@mail.ru
ICQ #84695765

From Edward Macary To All 12 November 2004

Sun Nov 07 2004 07:51, Evgeny Belov wrote to Edward Macary:

EB> By the way, what was the real speed of that modem on op-amps?
EB> the one that was made specifically for ZX, not isa.

I can’t figure out which modem on op-amps we are talking about.

EB> Yours sincerely, Evgeny
EB> Belov.

Edward.

From Andrey Romanenko To All 12 November 2004

VB> So look towards uCLinux. It does not require the presence of an MMU in the system.
VB> There are
VB> of course, restrictions on the operation of applications, but for the spec this is not critical.

You should first look at what the kernel sources are before
planning to compile it for the spec. There the pipe is solid, even if you throw it out
well, just almost EVERYTHING for such a more or less compact code as in x86 OBJ
it turns out to be 300kB!!! not to mention the fact that it runs on at least 2Mb of RAM!
In short, my point is that it will not be possible to run all this under the z80 for the reason
that it is written without taking into account address space restrictions.

Regards.

From Vladimir Berezenko To All 15 November 2004

VB>> There are, of course, restrictions on the operation of applications, but for the spec this
VB>> is not critical.
AR> You should first look at what the kernel sources are before
AR> planning to compile it for the spec. There's a solid pipe there, even
AR> if you throw out, well, just EVERYTHING, almost for such a more or less compact
AR> code like x86 OBJ it turns out to be 300kB!!! not to mention the fact that it plows
AR> with at least 2Mb of RAM! In short, my point is that it will not be possible to run all this
AR> under the z80 for the reason that it is written without taking into account the restrictions
AR> on the address space.

8) I didn’t say “it’s stupid to compile with a cross-compiler under the Z80”. I said look to the
side. I don’t understand what “code compactness” and “just throw out EVERYTHING” has to do with it.
In theory, the code compactness of x86 and Z80 will be approximately identical.

In short, we need fans here who will simply write all this, looking at
source codes in C, that’s all.